Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[georgephillip]

95% of income gains since the alleged end of our Great Recession have gone to 1% of Americans.

The worst President in living memory makes things difficult for many Americans.

Not for the richest 1% of Americans, just like his predecessor and successor.

The top 1% wouldn't do even better without Obama and his trampling of the law?

How much better are the 1% entitled to, 96%, 97% of all economic gains since the latest in a long line of Wall Street puppets moved into the White House?

 

[bripat9643]

If Wal-Mart profited $15.7B in the last 3 months of 2011 because it pays its workers minimum wage, then couldn't Wal-Mart use some of those $15.7 Billion profits in only 3 months to increase workers' wages and benefits?

$15.7 billion was their profit for the entire year.
On sales of nearly $447 billion.

Which means Wall-Mart could afford to pay a living wage to its employees:

"Wal-Mart paid its top executives and board members $66.7 million last year.

"The rest of the money has to be split among Wal-Mart's remaining roughly 2.2 million employees. Of those, about 1.4 million work in the U.S.

"Assume that Wal-Mart spends about 2/3 of that on the salaries of its U.S. employees, because salaries are generally higher here.

"That leaves $66.6 billion for the U.S. workers, or $47,593.

"The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that 30% of the average U.S. workers' total compensation is spent on benefits.

"That means the average Wal-Mart employee's take home pay should be $33,315.

"Wal-Mart doesn't say what its actual average salary is.

"But Payscale estimated it to be just over $22,000 at the end of last year.

"The conventional wisdom, of course, is that if Wal-Mart were to hand out raises, its stock would tank. That may not be true. When Google (GOOG) announced a 10% raise for its employees three years ago, the stock dropped a bit but mostly recovered within a year.

"And Google's stock is 60% higher now than it was before the raise."

Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50% raise - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet

2/3rds of what is spent on worker compensation? When you say "the rest of the money" you're forgetting the fact that Walmart has to purchase all the items it sells in its stores. It also has to pay for overhead like heating, water, sewage, electricity and maintenance. So exactly 2/3rds of what amount are you referring to?

 

[bripat9643]

Not for the richest 1% of Americans, just like his predecessor and successor.

The top 1% wouldn't do even better without Obama and his trampling of the law?

How much better are the 1% entitled to, 96%, 97% of all economic gains since the latest in a long line of Wall Street puppets moved into the White House?

People are entitled to whatever they earn through voluntary exchange.

 

[bripat9643]

Shifting control of the means of production from a relatively small group of private shareholders to a much larger group of public stakeholders is the exact opposite of monopoly.

I guess it depends on what you're talking about. If you're referring to voluntarily organized co-ops and the like, you're right. That wouldn't necessarily be monopolistic, and might work quite well.

If, on the other hand, you're talking about putting capital and means of production under government control, democratic or not, it seems very monopolistic to me. If you claim it's not, I see no point in quibbling over the definition monopoly. But it would put control under one entity, and it's that centralized, monolithic control I'm concerned with. It puts all our eggs in one basket and dangerously limits diversity. I don't think it's good for individual freedom nor, in the long run, good for society.

Putting the means of production under any centralized control, be it government, banking, or industry seems anti-democratic (at least) to me.

CH Douglas had similar thoughts during the period between the two World Wars:

"According to Douglas, the true purpose of production is consumption, and production must serve the genuine, freely expressed interests of consumers.

"In order to accomplish this objective, he believed that each citizen should have a beneficial, not direct, inheritance in the communal capital conferred by complete access to consumer goods assured by the National Dividend and Compensated Price.[6]

"Douglas thought that consumers, fully provided with adequate purchasing power, will establish the policy of production through exercise of their monetary vote.[6]

"In this view, the term economic democracy does not mean worker control of industry, but democratic control of credit.[6]

"Removing the policy of production from banking institutions, government, and industry, Social Credit envisages an 'aristocracy of producers, serving and accredited by a democracy of consumers.'"[6]

Social credit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In other words you want to put the means of production under centralized control, only pretend that you aren't. That's a typical fascist government plan.

 

[P@triot]

Not for the richest 1% of Americans, just like his predecessor and successor.

The top 1% wouldn't do even better without Obama and his trampling of the law?

How much better are the 1% entitled to, 96%, 97% of all economic gains since the latest in a long line of Wall Street puppets moved into the White House?

That's the problem - in your infinite ignorance you think people are "entitled". The "1%" is entitled to shit. They earned it.

 

[P@triot]

[ame=http://youtu.be/3h8O7V-WxWQ]Reagan Vs. Obama - Social Economics 101 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[RKMBrown]

Free-Market Capitalism, where the government is an adversary to business. That's the best system.

Ding ding... govco's focus wrt. business should be as the strong arm of contract law and property rights, and the regulator of production to ensure no one is screwing up the environment (polluting), harming the workers, or monopolizing a market.

Throwing out free-markets for government run markets cause the unproductive lazy do nothing good for nothing bums are jealous of the rich is just plain nuts.

 

[RKMBrown]

Reagan Vs. Obama - Social Economics 101 - YouTube

Love the video... echo's my life. This government stole my ambition. I have no desire whatsoever to row the boat for the moocher class.

 

[dblack]

Shifting control of the means of production from a relatively small group of private shareholders to a much larger group of public stakeholders is the exact opposite of monopoly.

I guess it depends on what you're talking about. If you're referring to voluntarily organized co-ops and the like, you're right. That wouldn't necessarily be monopolistic, and might work quite well.

If, on the other hand, you're talking about putting capital and means of production under government control, democratic or not, it seems very monopolistic to me. If you claim it's not, I see no point in quibbling over the definition monopoly. But it would put control under one entity, and it's that centralized, monolithic control I'm concerned with. It puts all our eggs in one basket and dangerously limits diversity. I don't think it's good for individual freedom nor, in the long run, good for society.

Putting the means of production under any centralized control, be it government, banking, or industry seems anti-democratic (at least) to me.

Democracy produces consensus rule. That means we vote and then use government to compel everyone to follow the wishes of the majority. Banks and industry have no such power to compel us. If we don't want to play along, we don't have to. It might not be easy, we might have to do a lot more ourselves, without the support offered by these institutions, but we're not forced to follow their script. We can go our own way and we won't be imprisoned or killed. Government control offers no such leeway. That's the crucial difference that socialists usually fail to recognize, or choose to ignore, but it's real.

As I've said elsewhere, if we can devise socialist structures (like the aforementioned co-ops) that are voluntary, that's great. But that's not, really, what we're taking about, is it?

 

[laziale]

Income inequality builds ambition which makes for a strong United States

-Geaux

Exactly

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If Wal-Mart profited $15.7B in the last 3 months of 2011 because it pays its workers minimum wage, then couldn't Wal-Mart use some of those $15.7 Billion profits in only 3 months to increase workers' wages and benefits?

$15.7 billion was their profit for the entire year.
On sales of nearly $447 billion.

Which means Wall-Mart could afford to pay a living wage to its employees:

"Wal-Mart paid its top executives and board members $66.7 million last year.

"The rest of the money has to be split among Wal-Mart's remaining roughly 2.2 million employees. Of those, about 1.4 million work in the U.S.

"Assume that Wal-Mart spends about 2/3 of that on the salaries of its U.S. employees, because salaries are generally higher here.

"That leaves $66.6 billion for the U.S. workers, or $47,593.

"The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that 30% of the average U.S. workers' total compensation is spent on benefits.

"That means the average Wal-Mart employee's take home pay should be $33,315.

"Wal-Mart doesn't say what its actual average salary is.

"But Payscale estimated it to be just over $22,000 at the end of last year.

"The conventional wisdom, of course, is that if Wal-Mart were to hand out raises, its stock would tank. That may not be true. When Google (GOOG) announced a 10% raise for its employees three years ago, the stock dropped a bit but mostly recovered within a year.

"And Google's stock is 60% higher now than it was before the raise."

Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50% raise - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet

Wow! He masked his mumbo-jumbo with a lot of numbers....still didn't make his case.

He wants to increase the salary of WalMart's 1.4 million workers by about $11,000 a year, or about $15.4 billion. That would drop their income, before tax, from $25.7 billion to $10.3 billion, a drop of about 60%.

The conventional wisdom, of course, is that if Wal-Mart were to hand out raises, its stock would tank. That may not be true.

Drop their earnings by 60%, I guarantee you will tank their stock.

 

[Wake]

When people have the freedom to guide their own financial destinies, there's going to be inequality. You're not going to find equality in all aspects of life. I would rather have the freedom to make my own future, than be controlled, regulated, and taxed so I'm "more equal" with everyone else. This punishes people from lower and middle classes who work real hard to accrue wealth.

 

[RKMBrown]

$15.7 billion was their profit for the entire year.
On sales of nearly $447 billion.

Which means Wall-Mart could afford to pay a living wage to its employees:

"Wal-Mart paid its top executives and board members $66.7 million last year.

"The rest of the money has to be split among Wal-Mart's remaining roughly 2.2 million employees. Of those, about 1.4 million work in the U.S.

"Assume that Wal-Mart spends about 2/3 of that on the salaries of its U.S. employees, because salaries are generally higher here.

"That leaves $66.6 billion for the U.S. workers, or $47,593.

"The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that 30% of the average U.S. workers' total compensation is spent on benefits.

"That means the average Wal-Mart employee's take home pay should be $33,315.

"Wal-Mart doesn't say what its actual average salary is.

"But Payscale estimated it to be just over $22,000 at the end of last year.

"The conventional wisdom, of course, is that if Wal-Mart were to hand out raises, its stock would tank. That may not be true. When Google (GOOG) announced a 10% raise for its employees three years ago, the stock dropped a bit but mostly recovered within a year.

"And Google's stock is 60% higher now than it was before the raise."

Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50% raise - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet

Wow! He masked his mumbo-jumbo with a lot of numbers....still didn't make his case.

He wants to increase the salary of WalMart's 1.4 million workers by about $11,000 a year, or about $15.4 billion. That would drop their income, before tax, from $25.7 billion to $10.3 billion, a drop of about 60%.

The conventional wisdom, of course, is that if Wal-Mart were to hand out raises, its stock would tank. That may not be true.

Drop their earnings by 60%, I guarantee you will tank their stock.

Not just that. But then the libtards would come out and increase the corporate and capital gains tax rates to make up for the loss in tax revenue. ROFL

I don't link libtards understand the concept of investing.

 

[georgephillip]

$15.7 billion was their profit for the entire year.
On sales of nearly $447 billion.

Which means Wall-Mart could afford to pay a living wage to its employees:

"Wal-Mart paid its top executives and board members $66.7 million last year.

"The rest of the money has to be split among Wal-Mart's remaining roughly 2.2 million employees. Of those, about 1.4 million work in the U.S.

"Assume that Wal-Mart spends about 2/3 of that on the salaries of its U.S. employees, because salaries are generally higher here.

"That leaves $66.6 billion for the U.S. workers, or $47,593.

"The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that 30% of the average U.S. workers' total compensation is spent on benefits.

"That means the average Wal-Mart employee's take home pay should be $33,315.

"Wal-Mart doesn't say what its actual average salary is.

"But Payscale estimated it to be just over $22,000 at the end of last year.

"The conventional wisdom, of course, is that if Wal-Mart were to hand out raises, its stock would tank. That may not be true. When Google (GOOG) announced a 10% raise for its employees three years ago, the stock dropped a bit but mostly recovered within a year.

"And Google's stock is 60% higher now than it was before the raise."

Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50% raise - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet

Wow! He masked his mumbo-jumbo with a lot of numbers....still didn't make his case.

He wants to increase the salary of WalMart's 1.4 million workers by about $11,000 a year, or about $15.4 billion. That would drop their income, before tax, from $25.7 billion to $10.3 billion, a drop of about 60%.

The conventional wisdom, of course, is that if Wal-Mart were to hand out raises, its stock would tank. That may not be true.

Drop their earnings by 60%, I guarantee you will tank their stock.

Where might we find $15.4 billion without tanking Wal-Mart stock?

"But we found, using the Forbes 400 list for 2013, that the wealth of six of Sam Walton’s descendants has continued to grow. Here are their rankings and their wealth:

No. 6 Christy Walton (daughter-in-law), $35.4 billion

No. 7: Jim Walton (son), $33.8 billion

No. 8: Alice Walton (daughter), $33.5 billion

No. 9: S. Robson Walton (son), $33.3 billion

No. 95: Ann Walton Kroenke (niece), $4.7 billion

No. 110: Nancy Walton Laurie (niece), $4 billion

Total Walton family wealth: $144.7 billion."

Silly Question.

Just how wealthy is the Wal-Mart Walton family? | PolitiFact Wisconsin

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Which means Wall-Mart could afford to pay a living wage to its employees:

"Wal-Mart paid its top executives and board members $66.7 million last year.

"The rest of the money has to be split among Wal-Mart's remaining roughly 2.2 million employees. Of those, about 1.4 million work in the U.S.

"Assume that Wal-Mart spends about 2/3 of that on the salaries of its U.S. employees, because salaries are generally higher here.

"That leaves $66.6 billion for the U.S. workers, or $47,593.

"The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that 30% of the average U.S. workers' total compensation is spent on benefits.

"That means the average Wal-Mart employee's take home pay should be $33,315.

"Wal-Mart doesn't say what its actual average salary is.

"But Payscale estimated it to be just over $22,000 at the end of last year.

"The conventional wisdom, of course, is that if Wal-Mart were to hand out raises, its stock would tank. That may not be true. When Google (GOOG) announced a 10% raise for its employees three years ago, the stock dropped a bit but mostly recovered within a year.

"And Google's stock is 60% higher now than it was before the raise."

Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50% raise - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet

Wow! He masked his mumbo-jumbo with a lot of numbers....still didn't make his case.

He wants to increase the salary of WalMart's 1.4 million workers by about $11,000 a year, or about $15.4 billion. That would drop their income, before tax, from $25.7 billion to $10.3 billion, a drop of about 60%.

The conventional wisdom, of course, is that if Wal-Mart were to hand out raises, its stock would tank. That may not be true.

Drop their earnings by 60%, I guarantee you will tank their stock.

Not just that. But then the libtards would come out and increase the corporate and capital gains tax rates to make up for the loss in tax revenue. ROFL

I don't link libtards understand the concept of investing.

Of course they don't understand. If you go to his link, he rambles on and on to make his silly case. Only an idiot liberal would fall for his claim.

 

[georgephillip]

Wow! He masked his mumbo-jumbo with a lot of numbers....still didn't make his case.

He wants to increase the salary of WalMart's 1.4 million workers by about $11,000 a year, or about $15.4 billion. That would drop their income, before tax, from $25.7 billion to $10.3 billion, a drop of about 60%.

The conventional wisdom, of course, is that if Wal-Mart were to hand out raises, its stock would tank. That may not be true.

Drop their earnings by 60%, I guarantee you will tank their stock.

Not just that. But then the libtards would come out and increase the corporate and capital gains tax rates to make up for the loss in tax revenue. ROFL

I don't link libtards understand the concept of investing.

Of course they don't understand. If you go to his link, he rambles on and on to make his silly case. Only an idiot liberal would fall for his claim.

Only an anonymous internet troll would discount his claim of peer review:

"I came up with what I feel is a better, more scientific way to determine the answer.

"Then I called a couple of really smart economists to get it 'peer'-reviewed.

"Sendhil Mullainathan, who teaches at MIT and received a MacArthur genius grant for his work in behavioral economics a few years ago, said he basically came to a similar conclusion as mine a few years ago.

"He says companies have more discretion in setting wages then they let on. 'Really the question is not whether this is possible but why some companies don't do it [this way],' says Mullainathan.

"Wal-Mart didn't respond to requests for comment."

Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50% raise - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Which means Wall-Mart could afford to pay a living wage to its employees:

"Wal-Mart paid its top executives and board members $66.7 million last year.

"The rest of the money has to be split among Wal-Mart's remaining roughly 2.2 million employees. Of those, about 1.4 million work in the U.S.

"Assume that Wal-Mart spends about 2/3 of that on the salaries of its U.S. employees, because salaries are generally higher here.

"That leaves $66.6 billion for the U.S. workers, or $47,593.

"The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that 30% of the average U.S. workers' total compensation is spent on benefits.

"That means the average Wal-Mart employee's take home pay should be $33,315.

"Wal-Mart doesn't say what its actual average salary is.

"But Payscale estimated it to be just over $22,000 at the end of last year.

"The conventional wisdom, of course, is that if Wal-Mart were to hand out raises, its stock would tank. That may not be true. When Google (GOOG) announced a 10% raise for its employees three years ago, the stock dropped a bit but mostly recovered within a year.

"And Google's stock is 60% higher now than it was before the raise."

Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50% raise - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet

Wow! He masked his mumbo-jumbo with a lot of numbers....still didn't make his case.

He wants to increase the salary of WalMart's 1.4 million workers by about $11,000 a year, or about $15.4 billion. That would drop their income, before tax, from $25.7 billion to $10.3 billion, a drop of about 60%.

The conventional wisdom, of course, is that if Wal-Mart were to hand out raises, its stock would tank. That may not be true.

Drop their earnings by 60%, I guarantee you will tank their stock.

Where might we find $15.4 billion without tanking Wal-Mart stock?

"But we found, using the Forbes 400 list for 2013, that the wealth of six of Sam Walton’s descendants has continued to grow. Here are their rankings and their wealth:

No. 6 Christy Walton (daughter-in-law), $35.4 billion

No. 7: Jim Walton (son), $33.8 billion

No. 8: Alice Walton (daughter), $33.5 billion

No. 9: S. Robson Walton (son), $33.3 billion

No. 95: Ann Walton Kroenke (niece), $4.7 billion

No. 110: Nancy Walton Laurie (niece), $4 billion

Total Walton family wealth: $144.7 billion."

Silly Question.

Just how wealthy is the Wal-Mart Walton family? | PolitiFact Wisconsin

Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?

 

[georgephillip]

Wow! He masked his mumbo-jumbo with a lot of numbers....still didn't make his case.

He wants to increase the salary of WalMart's 1.4 million workers by about $11,000 a year, or about $15.4 billion. That would drop their income, before tax, from $25.7 billion to $10.3 billion, a drop of about 60%.

The conventional wisdom, of course, is that if Wal-Mart were to hand out raises, its stock would tank. That may not be true.

Drop their earnings by 60%, I guarantee you will tank their stock.

Where might we find $15.4 billion without tanking Wal-Mart stock?

"But we found, using the Forbes 400 list for 2013, that the wealth of six of Sam Walton’s descendants has continued to grow. Here are their rankings and their wealth:

No. 6 Christy Walton (daughter-in-law), $35.4 billion

No. 7: Jim Walton (son), $33.8 billion

No. 8: Alice Walton (daughter), $33.5 billion

No. 9: S. Robson Walton (son), $33.3 billion

No. 95: Ann Walton Kroenke (niece), $4.7 billion

No. 110: Nancy Walton Laurie (niece), $4 billion

Total Walton family wealth: $144.7 billion."

Silly Question.

Just how wealthy is the Wal-Mart Walton family? | PolitiFact Wisconsin

Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?

Tax them at the same rate FDR or Eisenhower did.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not just that. But then the libtards would come out and increase the corporate and capital gains tax rates to make up for the loss in tax revenue. ROFL

I don't link libtards understand the concept of investing.

Of course they don't understand. If you go to his link, he rambles on and on to make his silly case. Only an idiot liberal would fall for his claim.

Only an anonymous internet troll would discount his claim of peer review:

"I came up with what I feel is a better, more scientific way to determine the answer.

"Then I called a couple of really smart economists to get it 'peer'-reviewed.

"Sendhil Mullainathan, who teaches at MIT and received a MacArthur genius grant for his work in behavioral economics a few years ago, said he basically came to a similar conclusion as mine a few years ago.

"He says companies have more discretion in setting wages then they let on. 'Really the question is not whether this is possible but why some companies don't do it [this way],' says Mullainathan.

"Wal-Mart didn't respond to requests for comment."

Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50% raise - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet

"Then I called a couple of really smart economists to get it 'peer'-reviewed.

Peer reviewed? LOL!

WalMart can pay what they like.
Stephen Gandel can make any silly claim he'd like about a decrease of earnings of $15.4 billion not dropping the stock price. He'd have a stronger case if he listed companies where earnings dropped 60% without the stock falling. I'll wait.


"He says companies have more discretion in setting wages then they let on.

As I said, WalMart can pay what they'd like.

'Really the question is not whether this is possible but why some companies don't do it [this way],' says Mullainathan.

Why? Because they don't want their stock to tank. Because they don't need to, to retain employees.
This guy got a genius grant? LOL!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Where might we find $15.4 billion without tanking Wal-Mart stock?

"But we found, using the Forbes 400 list for 2013, that the wealth of six of Sam Walton’s descendants has continued to grow. Here are their rankings and their wealth:

No. 6 Christy Walton (daughter-in-law), $35.4 billion

No. 7: Jim Walton (son), $33.8 billion

No. 8: Alice Walton (daughter), $33.5 billion

No. 9: S. Robson Walton (son), $33.3 billion

No. 95: Ann Walton Kroenke (niece), $4.7 billion

No. 110: Nancy Walton Laurie (niece), $4 billion

Total Walton family wealth: $144.7 billion."

Silly Question.

Just how wealthy is the Wal-Mart Walton family? | PolitiFact Wisconsin

Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?

Tax them at the same rate FDR or Eisenhower did.

They didn't get their wealth from income, how is a higher income tax rate going to take it away?
You really don't think this stuff through, do you?